arXiv subjects

Lin Chen

Publications and source records attributed to Lin Chen.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI agents reshape consensus formation in human groups

As large language model (LLM) agents shift from tools to participants in human groups, a fundamental question for collective behavior is how their growing presence reshapes consensus formation. Here we study mixed human-AI groups in a collaborative description game, in which shared conventions emerge through repeated rounds of random pairwise communication. Varying the proportions of LLM agents, we identify three distinct regimes of consensus formation: low agent proportions facilitate human-led consensus, intermediate proportions disrupt convergence, and high proportions restore strong consensus while shifting it toward agent-led conventions. Crucially, these regimes differ not only in the strength of convergence, but also in the semantic grounding and communicative form of the resulting consensus: human-led consensus is more concrete, holistic, and grounded in shared real-world analogies, whereas agent-led consensus is more abstract, less information-dense, and more geometrically segmented. Mechanistically, agent influence arises from a shared linguistic prior that places agents near one another in the expression space, combined with relatively stable expression choices across rounds; humans initially resist adopting expressions from partners perceived as AI but gradually yield to conformity pressure. These findings provide evidence that AI composition can shape the emergence, content, and perceived legitimacy of group norms, making agent proportion and transparency important design variables for human-AI systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Citing Less Critically: LLMs Reshape the Rhetoric and Reach of Scientific Citation

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

AsyncTool: Evaluating the Asynchronous Function Calling Capability under Multi-Task Scenarios

Large language model (LLM)-based agents have shown strong capabilities in using external tools to solve complex tasks. However, existing evaluations often overlook the temporal dimension of tool use, especially the impact of tool response latency, and are usually limited to single-task settings. In real-world applications, multiple tasks often need to be executed concurrently, and overall efficiency depends on whether an agent can use idle time while waiting for tool responses. We refer to this capability as asynchronous tool calling. To evaluate it, we propose AsyncTool, a benchmark for assessing LLM-based agents in interactive multi-task tool-use environments with delayed tool feedback. AsyncTool presents multiple heterogeneous tasks simultaneously and simulates realistic tool response latency during execution. Using a hybrid data evolution strategy, we construct a diverse asynchronous multitasking dataset that covers multiple scenarios and tool-use patterns. We evaluate models at the step, sub-task, and task levels, and introduce efficiency-oriented metrics to measure task coordination and completion efficiency. Extensive experiments show that delayed tool feedback poses substantial challenges to current agents and leads to clear performance degradation. Models that better coordinate task switching, dependency tracking, and state maintenance achieve stronger performance on AsyncTool. Our analysis identifies key failure modes of current tool-using agents and provides practical insights for designing future systems with stronger temporal reasoning and coordination capabilities.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

DiffPDE: Masked Diffusion Language Models as PDE Solver

Existing approaches for synthesizing Partial Differential Equation (PDE) solvers predominantly rely on autoregressive models, yet their global left-to-right decoding incurs substantial redundancy when addressing inherently localized bugs. In this work, we challenge this inefficient paradigm and propose DiffPDE, a framework leveraging discrete diffusion language models for targeted code repair. By introducing a localized re-masking and infilling strategy, DiffPDE regenerates only erroneous regions while preserving correct context, naturally aligning generation with the sparse nature of PDE errors. Furthermore, to handle coupled bugs requiring sequential interventions, we present Iterative Debugging GRPO (ID-GRPO), a reinforcement learning scheme that enables multi-round debugging within single trajectories via intermediate rewards. Experiments on PDEBench show that DiffPDE achieves competitive accuracy, outperforms same-scale AR models, and significantly accelerates repair.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Do LLMs Change Their Minds Like Humans? Diagnosing Human--LLM Divergence in Single-Turn Persuasion Judgments

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs in response to persuasive arguments, as humans do, remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus in which original posters explicitly verify whether a reply changed their view. Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.079 to 0.178). Content-level analyses show that humans and LLMs agree on the strongest persuasion cues but diverge on finer ones: humans are more swayed by novel content and assertive language, whereas LLMs favor topical similarity and surface-level formatting. At the level of persuasion strategy, LLMs underweight emotional appeals and overweight credibility signals relative to humans, while the type of proposition under debate exerts no measurable effect on the degree of divergence. Furthermore, switching from first-person role-playing to third-person observation shifts all models toward greater resistance to persuasion, with the effect varying across persuasion strategies and textual features. These findings highlight the risk of treating LLM judgments as faithful proxies for human belief updating and point to structural differences in how LLMs and humans process persuasive discourse. Our code is available at https://github.com/tsinghua-fib-lab/LLM-belief-update-cmv.

cs.CY↗